- Joined
- Dec 1, 2016
- Messages
- 996
- Reaction score
- 525
- Location
- USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
United Nations Security Council resolution 446, adopted on 22 March 1979, concerned the issue of Israeli settlements in the "Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem".[SUP][1][/SUP] This refers to the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip as well as the Syrian Golan Heights.
In the Resolution, the Security Council determined: "that the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East"
The Resolution was adopted by 12 votes to none, with 3 abstentions from Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States of America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_446
Regarding Jewish influence on US foreign policy:
A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States
Do you think that Israel has the riight to buld new and expand older settlements on the West Bank?
Actually they do. Throughout this planet's history, all nations have built settlements in the lands they conquered and managed to hold onto. Why should the middle east be any different. if we are going to demand that Israel back off, shouldn't we then ask every nation on the planet to vacate settlements from any land that they gained at any point in history by conquest? Virtually every border in Europe would change. Israel has been patient for over five decades now. Every time they have given up land to the Palistineans for the sake of peace, the rockets and suicide bombers are just moved in much closer to Israeli territory. At some point, Israel has every right to just say "Screw them!" This land is ours now.
Yes, for as long as Israel is threatened with obliteration by its neighbours and the wider Islamic world. Settlements are part of Israel's defensive strategy. The best defence is essential; no other country is under an equivalent threat of destruction.
The threat has to be credible. For instance, if the Russians decided to invade and occupy Wales because they claimed it to be an existential threat to them, everybody would rightly belly laugh at the idea
Deals have been struck with Egypt and Jordan. There's nothing to stop a just settlement to the Israel/Palestine conflict that would encompass the remaining Arab states . The Saudi Peace Initiative could, for example, offer such hope.
I think that a big obstacle is that the political elites on either side are too entrenched and concerned about their own political aspirations to offer any real hope of a resolution to the conflict. That the only way might be for international pressure on both sides to force the issue.
Up until now the US veto has prevented this and has nobbled what is a massive international consensus for a resolution of the conflict on the 1967 borders , the Two States solution.
What international law would that be? Post a specific statute.
Israel is not a signatory to any treaty preventing them from building settlements in conquered territories.
If the palistineans ever gain nukes and are stupid enough to even think of using them against Israel, it would be a suicide move for the palistineans. Israel not only has nukes, they have the capability to destroy the palistineans with them, even if Israel is hit first.
I think I'm well known here to oppose settlements, the resolution in the UN however is ridiculous, do you even understand how ridiculous it is?
The UN resolution says that Jews are not allowed to live in the Jewish quarter of the old city of Jerusalem
Seems the UN has already come to a resolution on this matter.
Odd, but this sounds a lot like the what just happened last week.
And how does this House vote, 342 to 80, which seems to have had a lot of Democrat support affect Obama's anti-Israel move last week?
House Passes Symbolic Resolution Renouncing Anti-Israel UN Vote - Breitbart
Fair points. Though if Russia declared year after year, day after day, that it intended as its prime policy objective to wipe Wales and the Welsh off the map the laughter might have a nervous edge to it.
'International pressure' might, I concede, by helpful if it was not entirely directed at one side. Israel understandably fears that if it returned to 1967 borders it would be wide open to attack and that that imaginary entity the 'International Community' would do nothing to protect it. The lesson Jews have drawn from the 20th century is that they had best protect themselves because no one else will.
So, lets return to the 1967 borders. Give the West Bank back to Jordan, who illegally obtained the land through warfare. Give Gaza back to the Egyptians who illegally obtained the land through warfare.
Oh, wait.
Give the lands back to Britain. Um, no. They gained the land through warfare. Give it back to the Ottoman Empire.
Nope, the don't exist. And they obtained the land through warfare as well.
Hmmmmmm
All of your examples predate the acceptance of the 4th Geneva Convention as an instrument to set the guidelines for international law and relations by its signatories. An inconvenient truth for you perhaps but that's how it is
If you choose not to believe in adhering to things you have signed an agreement on or disagree with the wholly understandable use of laws designed at preventing conflicts and trying to keep a degree of international security in the world, the protections of the sovereignty of states and peoples , preventing human rights abuses you are free to do so. Some of us, however , have a completely different view
So, lets return to the 1967 borders. Give the West Bank back to Jordan, who illegally obtained the land through warfare. Give Gaza back to the Egyptians who illegally obtained the land through warfare.
Oh, wait.
Give the lands back to Britain. Um, no. They gained the land through warfare. Give it back to the Ottoman Empire.
Nope, the don't exist. And they obtained the land through warfare as well.
Hmmmmmm
So, when was the West Bank Palestinian?
Since well before the creation of the state of Israel
Twas British and before that the Ottoman Empire.
Most countries in the world have , at one time or another , been under the jack boot of a colonialist power or part of an empire ( including your own ). You should know better than to push this moot point imo
The Ottoman Empire was a "Colonist power" in reference to Palestine?
Oh, hell no.
I don't blame the Jewish people for wanting to protect themselves and I support their right of self defence , what I don't support is the ongoing violations of the Palestinian people that have resulted from the establishment of the Israeli state. Have the Arabs made mistakes ? For sure they have. Should that mean that the Palestinian people are denied the right to freedom and self determination indefinitely ? Not in my book
Since well before the creation of the state of Israel
Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire , it's not a controversial statement. I don't see where you are going with this tbh